Is Ego-Depletion a Replicable Effect? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Ego-Depletion a Replicable Effect?

#51

Post by dwaltrip » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 12:36 AM UTC

jldugger wrote: post #10

joeyrideout wrote: post #2

As a layman when it comes to statistics and academia, this is the first I've heard of "publication bias". It seems like a pretty big problem at first glance, especially if it recurses and calls into question meta-analysis being done to investigate the presence of the bias itself. Sounds like a massive headache. If this problem is as big as it sounds, what are the repercussions?

The repercussions are pretty depressing for social sciences. Especially Psych, which relies on a lot of "30 undergraduates were recruited" to demonstrate effects. Particularly damaging is that this particular theory (thinking hard leads to drops in blood glucose levels) was widely promoted in the general public; I recall watching a TED talk about it, as well as a pop-sci book. There was an econtalk episode late last…

It sounds like some of these researchers need their own ego depleted, for the sake of science. Critical, well-intentioned analyses of a study by other groups should be a welcome thing, as it will lead to more robust results. It seems like the incentives have gotten way out of whack.

Re: Is Ego-Depletion a Replicable Effect?

#52

Post by jldugger » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 1:45 AM UTC

dwaltrip wrote: post #51

jldugger wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The repercussions are pretty depressing for social sciences. Especially Psych, which relies on a lot of "30 undergraduates were recruited" to demonstrate effects. Particularly damaging is that this particular theory (thinking hard leads to drops in blood glucose levels) was widely promoted in the general public; I recall watching a TED talk about it, as well as a pop-sci book. There was an econtalk episode late last…

It sounds like some of these researchers need their own ego depleted, for the sake of science. Critical, well-intentioned analyses of a study by other groups should be a welcome thing, as it will lead to more robust results. It seems like the incentives have gotten way out of whack.

Bear in mind it's not just ego, but livelihood. People's grant lines and tenure cases rely in part on contributing to the development of the field, and having the basis of your research retracted usually undermines your tenure review and puts a hamper on continued grant funding. So it's not super surprising that people are defensive, but I'm always amazed at how publicly aggressive things can get.

Re: Is Ego-Depletion a Replicable Effect?

#53

Post by popra » Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 7:47 AM UTC

fdsaaf wrote: post #49

popra wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HR finds some excuse to fire you Which shouldn't be surprising, because unless carefully expressed, skepticism towards the stereotype threat effect can be interpreted as a justification for stereotyping, especially when the skepticism is expressed in the context of political tenets.

Stereotypes are accurate, though. People are good pattern-recognizers, and the characteristics that we use to form stereotype do convey useful information. Pretending that stereotypes are factually bogus is wrong. It creates resentment. It's much better to accept that stereotypes exist for a reason, but emphasize that it's a grave injustice to let stereotypes hurt our evaluation of people who defy these stereotypes.…

I like to think of myself as technically minded. However, your stereotype of technically minded people seems to sugest that either I accept the "natural truth" of stereotype accuracy or forfeit my technically minded view of myself. I will do neither.

The claim that one can engage in stereotyping people while exibiting fair threatment of the same people as individuals is dubious to say the least given the definition of stereotyping.

Once engaged in stereotyping no amount of post factum fair threatment of the individual will make up for the unfairness.

Later edit: People are imperfect pattern recognisers, in fact our pattern recognition generates a significant amount of false positives. From an evolutionary perspective this was acceptable at a time when tigers could be lurking in the bush. The penalty for running from an imaginary tiger in the bush is insignifiant compared to the penalty of not running from an undetected tiger.